the impact of the 19th amendment by elmore perera
TRANSCRIPT
The Impact of the 19th Amendment By Elmore PereraThe Impact of
the 19th Amendment By Elmore PereraLEN logo(Lanka-e-News -
10.June.2015, 10.00 PM) A prophet is not without honour save in his
own country. My many weaknesses are well known to CIMOGG. I
therefore consider it as a signal honour to have been invited to
prophesy as it were, about the possible impact of the 19th
Amendment. Judge Learned Hand, a distinguished American Judge made
these observations. I quote What do we mean when we say that first
of all we seek liberty? I often wonder whether we do not rest our
hopes too much upon constitutions, on laws and upon courts. These
are false hopes, believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in
the hearts of men and women. When it dies there, no Constitution,
no Law, no Court can ever do much to help it. While it lies there,
it needs no Constitution, no law, no court to save it Unquote. As
chief guest at my induction as OPA President in 2007, Justice Mark
Fernando said, I quote What is required are Just Persons. Not Just
Constitutions, Just Laws or Just Institutions. Right persons and
not institutions, because Paradise even on earth is not a physical
place of material development but a set of values: fairness,
tolerance, non-discrimination and so on. A Nirvana in which people
are liberated from craving and evil. Unquote. The United Kingdom is
perhaps the only nation that survives without a written
Constitution. Since gaining Independence in 1948 we were governed
by the Constitution of Sir Ivor Jennings which provided for an
Independent Public Service Commission and the entrenched safeguard
that no citizen may be conferred any right which is denied to any
other citizen. In 1972, the first Republican Constitution abolished
the Independent Public Service Commission and vested sovereignty in
the National State Assembly. In 1978, the Second Republican
Constitution provided in Article 3 that Sovereignty, which includes
the powers of government, fundamental rights and the franchise, was
vested in us, the people, and was inalienable. In Article 4 was set
out how the peoples Legislative, Executive and Judicial powers that
constitute an essential part of our sovereignty, shall be exercised
and enjoyed (not suffered!) by us. In reality, however, this
sovereignty was limited to the short periods of time preceding
elections. Politics is too serious a matter to be left to the
Politicians, said General Charles de Gaulle. The truth of this
assertion was confirmed by the duplicitous conduct of our
politicians in respect of the 17th Amendment drafted by the OPA
after extensive consultation with them. Acting in concert, our
politicians watered it down in 2001, rendered it ineffective in
2005 and finally rejected and replaced it with the 18th Amendment
in 2010, paving the way for an inevitable dictatorship. By 2013,
across the board 70% of the peoples representatives were reaping a
bountiful harvest under the patronage of an all-powerful Executive
President. There was scarcely a whimper from the other 30% who
suffered a severe loss of credibility. Anarchy reigned. It was
widely agreed that 35 years of experience had shown that the
Executive Presidency had contributed immensely to several of the
ills that plagued the country. Foremost among them were, the
tendency towards Constitutional Authoritarianism, collapse of
democratic institutions, blatant disregard of the rule of law,
breakdown of law and order, corruption, nepotism, interference with
the Judiciary and the militarization of Society. Despite the defeat
of armed separatism, we had yet to win the peace. Dissent of any
form was not tolerated and the media was under severe pressure. The
rise of extremism posed a threat to National Unity. It had become
quite obvious to a vast majority of our people that the progressive
disintegration and collapse of our political structures over a
period of time had now become complete. They were conscious of the
fact that, not only those in the Cabinet and the Parliament, but
also those in the Provincial Councils and Pradeshiya Sabhas were
active collaborators in the existing corrupt system. The people
were well aware that the only function those representatives
performed was to effectively abuse their positions to maximise
their personal benefits and those of their families. The all
powerful Executive Presidential System facilitating one single
individual to wield enormous powers without any responsibility or
accountability had obviously become the key instrument which
sustained the corrupt, irresponsible and inhuman system of
government. The abolition of that system was seen as a prerequisite
for the creation of a just and equitable society and the
transformation of our country once again, to a land suitable for
decent, law abiding people to live in. Three years ago, the
Visionary that he was, Ven. Maduluwawe Sobitha Thero realized that
Sri Lankan Society was corrupt to the core, and envisioned remedial
measures that were urgently needed. To establish a Just Society in
Sri Lanka he set about bringing together the people of the country,
irrespective of their political affiliation, race and religion. His
aim was to re-establish a Society which respects and values
democratic good governance and the rule of law. Under his
leadership the National Movement for Social Justice (NMSJ) was
formed .The long-term goal of the NMSJ was to create an awareness
among the people, political parties and the government. The
following objectives were identified.1. Democratic Governance:
Abolish the Executive Presidency and introduce an electoral system
with an equitable mix of the first-past-the post and proportional
representation systems with no preferential voting.2. De
Politicised Governance: Repeal the 18th Amendment and reinstate the
17th Amendment with necessary refinements.3. A stable country with
Contented Communities : Implement the recommendations of the
Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC)4. A strong
national economy : Priority for manufacturing industries, modernize
agriculture, strengthen the farmers' pension scheme, promotion of
exports through the production of high quality and high value-added
products, planned control of imports that adversely affect the
economy.5. A Civilised and law-abiding Society: Restore the rule of
law. Application of the law equally to all.6. Democratic government
free of bribery and corruption: a decisive end to bribery,
corruption, wastage, nepotism and cronyism in governance; a new
fundamental rights chapter with broadened civil and political
rights guaranteeing equal rights to all citizens and the
recognition of Social, Economical and Cultural rights as well as
womens rights and childrens rights. 7. Womens rights and Child
protection: More effective legislation for protection of rights of
women and children.8. Free education and healthcare and other
social infrastructure: Sufficient budgetary provision to revive and
resuscitate free education, health care and other social
infrastructure.9. Empowerment of the People: The right of the
People to information, subject only to reasonable safeguards to
protect the interests of society.10. Planned governance and prudent
state management: laws to prevent recurrence of misdoings such as
hedging, import of low quality oil, sale of state assets at a loss
or at heavily discounted prices, Inquire into the numerous
instances of bribery and corruption reported in the reports of COPE
and bring the perpetrators to Justice; planning of the management
of the state sector with and through institutions consisting of
professionals and implementing such plans, ensuring social justice.
The NMSJ neither sought allegiance to, nor opposed any political
party. It was not in the least interested in contesting any
election. Having no political agenda himself and with absolutely no
intention of seeking election as President, the Ven. Thero
vigorously campaigned in Colombo and several outstations on the
basis that the Executive Presidency was consistently opposed by all
parties, other than the UNP which introduced it. His clear position
was that the most desirable win-win situation was for the UPFA
government which then enjoyed a 2/3 rds majority in Parliament, to
agree to the abolition of the Executive Presidency and bring in a
Constitutional amendment to that effect. Most, if not all, members
of NMSJ were certain that Mahinda Rajapaksa would never agree to
abolish the Executive Presidency or even agree to any reduction of
the powers he had arrogated to himself and extensively enjoyed
after the passage of the 18th Amendment. He was not at all likely
to do anything, apart from drawing a red herring by paying lip
service to such abolition. Hoping for a miracle, the incumbent
Presidents attention was drawn to the fact that not only had he led
a pada yathra urging the abolition of the Executive Presidency, he
had also specifically pledged to do so in the Mahinda Chintana in
2005 and reiterated it in his Idiri Dekma in 2010. He also enjoyed
a clear 2/3 rds majority in Parliament and there was nothing to
prevent him from fulfilling his repeated pledges. Typically,
Mahinda Rajapakse never overtly rejected this appeal but covertly
acted to neutralize, if not destroy, this strictly a-political
threat to his reign. Fielding a common candidate at the next
Presidential election seemed to be the only option available to
deny Mahinda Rajapakse a 3rd term as Executive President.
Identifying a politician whose pledge to abolish the Executive
Presidency once elected to that position, would be believed by the
people, seemed an impossible task. As a means to fulfill this
aspiration of a vast majority of our citizens, the NMSJ proposed
that a Common Candidate who will hold office for a maximum period
of six months, be presented and made victorious. In that backdrop
the NMSJ identified the following tasks to be assigned to the
Common Candidate, as being urgent in the National interest.i)
Abolish the Executive Presidential System of government which
inherently facilitates the genesis of constitutional dictators, and
establish a Parliamentary System of government headed by a Prime
Minister who shall be accountable to the Parliament and the
People.ii) Replace the present electoral system with a system that
has an equitable mix of the first-past-the post and Proportional
Representation Systems so that every elector will have his/her own
Member of Parliament, and there is no preferential voting.iii)
Repeal the 18th Amendment which has consolidated the Executive
Presidential System and reinstall the 17th Amendment with necessary
amendments to restore the Independence of the important Commissions
such as the Judicial, Public Service, Elections and Human Rights
Commissions. If the UPFA government did not agree to do so,
abolition of the Executive Presidency would be the first priority
of a common candidate who was willing to abolish the Executive
Presidency. Such candidate should be committed to a draft
Constitutional Amendment which would in effect be the election
manifesto whereby a mandate would be sought from the people to
abolish the executive Presidency and reform the Electoral system.
When such candidate wins he/she would immediately dissolve
Parliament. The first Bill to be placed before the new Parliament,
to be passed within 120 days, will be the proposed Constitutional
Amendment. No difficulty was envisaged in thereafter obtaining the
necessary 2/3rds majority at that time as the Opposition, having
been defeated at the elections, was unlikely to wait another 6
years to try to regain power. In the event of the Supreme Court
holding that the proposed amendment required approval by the
People, a referendum would be held. That would create a climate in
which, it would be possible to discuss issues rationally and
implement measures to effect not only the other urgent reforms that
had initially been identified, but also others that may have been
subsequently identified, as being necessary to achieve Social
Justice in Sri Lanka. It became clear that far from abolishing the
Executive Presidency, Mahinda Rajapakse was seeking to consolidate
his position at the earliest opportunity. A two stage process was
then envisaged. Stage 1 The election of a Common Candidate wholly
committed to:
(i) Abolish the Executive Presidency and replace it with a
Parliamentary system consisting of a Prime Minister and a Cabinet
of not more than 25 Ministers with not more than 25 Deputy/ non
Cabinet Ministers,
(ii) Repeal the 18th Amendment and restore the Constitutional
Council and Independent Commissions (as in the 17th Amendment),
and
(iii) Guarantee to all Sri Lankans the same rights irrespective of
Race, Religion, Caste, Creed, Culture or Gender and establish a
Commission for the promotion and protection of the rights of
Cultural, Religious, and Linguistic Communities.Stage 2 When
elected as President, the Common Candidate who would be vested with
all the then existing powers of the Executive President (including
those under the 18th Amendment), will in the lawful exercise of
those powers, appoint:(1) A Prime Minister, 25 Ministers and 25
Deputy/Non Cabinet Ministers from amongst the sitting MPs,
(2) Chairmen and Members of the Independent Commissions, and
(3) Other key officials, as provided by existing law Two weeks
after these transitions become effective, the President will submit
to the people by Referendum, the proposed amendments to the
Constitution (including Electoral Reforms) and immediately
thereafter dissolve Parliament, having issued proclamations that
the General Election and the Referendum shall be held on the same
day. The President, Prime Minister, Cabinet Ministers, Members of
the Independent Commissions and all officials who continue in
office, will, inter alia, draft the Constitutional amendments and
other legislation to be placed before the newly elected Parliament.
The Elections and Referendum will be conducted with the Independent
Elections, Police, Judicial and Public Service Commissions in
place. A drastic change in the Political Culture was inevitable.
The constitutional amendments (including Abolishing the Executive
Presidency and Electoral Reforms) and any other necessary
legislation would all then be satisfactorily concluded, and the
Common Candidate would step down on day 181 i.e. (9th July 2015),
if not earlier. Every possible effort was made to enlist the
support of all political parties, civil society groups and
individuals unreservedly committed to these objectives. Increasing
numbers of political parties and other civil society organisations,
totaling 47, agreed to support the Common Candidate who had still
not been named MOUs were signed and numerous agreements reached, in
support of this endeavour. Many activities were planned and
executed. The problem was to find a Common Candidate. The Ven.
Sobitha Thero who initially ruled out any suggestion that he should
be the common candidate, after much persuasion by the members of
the NMSJ, agreed to perform that function, only if it was just not
possible to find a suitable common candidate. With that assurance
NMSJ pressed on. Ven. Sobitha Thero who had been hospitalized,
discharged himself from hospital and returned to his Temple on 18th
November 2014 to give leadership to the campaign. At our meeting on
20th November 2014, soon after the announcement had been made, that
the Presidential election would be held on 8th January 2015, we
were delighted by the news that Maithripala Sirisena was quitting
the government to be the Common Candidate. Most delighted to
receive the news was Ven. Sobitha Thero. Relieved of the prospect
of Ven. Sobitha Thero having to contest an election, the NMSJ fully
supported the common candidature of Maithripala Sirisena and spared
no pains to ensure his election. This heralded the dawn of a new
era in Sri Lankan Politics. The Sovereign People had great
expectations of a significant change for the better in our
Political Culture. On 1st December, 2014, at the Viharamahadevi
Open Air Theatre, Maithripala Sirisena entered into an MOU with the
47 groups that had rallied round the NMSJ to support the Common
Candidate. Having defected from a dictatorial regime, and been
nominated as the Common Candidate, Maithripala Sirisena, in a
hastily drafted election manifesto, pledged, within 100 days of
election as president, to inter alia(1) Introduce in Parliament on
21st January 2015 a draft 19th Amendment to replace the existing
Executive Presidential System with a Cabinet of Ministers
responsible to Parliament and to repeal the 18th amendment and
activate, as soon as possible, Independent Judicial Service,
Police, Public Service, Elections, Bribery and Corruption, and
Human Rights Commissions.(2) By 28th January 2015, appoint an
inter-party Committee to make recommendations to abolish
preferential voting and introduce a mix of the first-past-the post
and proportional representation systems such that every electorate
will have a representative.(3) By 2nd February 2015, enact
legislation for a code of ethics for Parliamentarians.(4) By 18th
February 2015, establish Independent Commissions and make relevant
appointments.(5) By 20th February 2015, introduce a Right to
Information Bill.(6) By 2nd March 2015, draft legislation in terms
of the recommendations of the Committee appointed on 28th January
2015.(7) By 17th March 2015, submit to Parliament the proposed
Electoral Reforms, to be passed as soon as possible(8) By 20th
March 2015, get the Right to Information Act passed .(9) By 23rd
March 2015, establish the Constitutional Council and initiate the
process to make appointments to the Independent Commissions.
(10) By 20th April 2015, activate the system of government with a
Cabinet responsible to Parliament replacing the existing
dictatorial Executive Presidential System, as proposed in the 19th
Amendment introduced to Parliament on 21st January 2015.(11)
Immediately after 23rd April 2015, dissolve Parliament and take
steps to conduct a free and fair election under a Caretaker
Government. It is in this backdrop that the sovereign people pinned
all their hopes on the smooth passage of the 19th Amendment. For
the first time, after 1978, we had elected a President who was not
only willing, but also determined to shed most, if not all, of his
dictatorial powers as President. In broad terms the People expected
the 19th Amendment to
(1) Abolish the Executive Presidency.
(2) Restrict the Cabinet to 25.
(3) Bring back the provisions of the 17th Amendment and
re-establish the Independent Commissions, and
(4) Review the Proportional Representation system.
Eschewing a Referendum, or any form of Public consultation, the
draft 19th Amendment was gazetted as late as 16th March 2015. Sadly
it fell far short of the peoples expectations. The key issue of
whether to abolish the Executive Presidency outright or to severely
curb the powers of the President and institute adequate checks and
balances, has not been addressed. Apart from reducing the
Presidents term of office from six to five years, it merely
suggested some contradictory and/or impractical provisions, for
transfer of some of the powers of the President to the Prime
Minister, the Constitutional Council and the Independent
Commissions. Article 30 (1) which provides that the President shall
be the Head of State, the Head of the Executive and of the
Government and the Commander in Chief of the Armed Services,
remained unchanged. The provisions in proposed Articles 42, 43 and
45 which require the President to act on the advice of the Prime
Minister, were clearly inconsistent with the aforementioned
provision in Article 30 (1), that the President shall be the Head
of the Executive and of the Government. Proposed Article 35
continued to provide the President with immunity from civil or
criminal proceedings. Even the Presidents spouse is prohibited from
instituting a civil action for divorce or maintenance. Such
immunity is enjoyed only in Monarchical States, and not in
Democratic Republics where everyone is equal before the law and
subject to the equal protection of the law. Even in the US
Constitution, the President has not been granted any such immunity.
Proposed new Article 37 provided that in the absence of the
President, the Speaker shall act in that office. Under both the
1946 and 1972 Constitutions, provision was made for the Chief
Justice to assume that office. Article 66 read with Article 91 of
the 1978 Constitution provides that the seat of a MP becomes vacant
if he is the President even for a day. In an earlier case, when the
Speaker staked a claim to act as President, Raja Wanasundera, then
Attorney General, was of the view that the combination of offices
of Speaker and President would be against the whole spirit of the
Constitution. Articles 41 A to 41 I seemed to indicate some
unanimity on the re-establishment of the Independent Commissions.
Article 46 provided that the number of Cabinet Ministers shall not
exceed thirty. What seemed to be a progressive feature was the
inclusion of the Citizens Right to Information as a new fundamental
right. However this provision appeared to negate the Right to
Information Law. The National Government, which was formed as an
answer to the countrys political ills, had blurred the separation
between the Government and the Opposition. President Sirisena
strenuously advocated the concept of a National Government but
faced an uphill battle. To prevent party stalwarts from regrouping
with the ousted President, the pledge to restrict the Cabinet was
broken. Vociferous opponents, (not only of the President but also
of the 19th Amendment) who even had questionable records, were
among those appointed. The only justification for such appointments
seemed to be that their votes were needed to obtain a 2/3rd
majority. The determination of the Supreme Court, pronounced in
Parliament in Thursday, 9th April 2015, stated inter alia that:(1)
The President is not the sole repository of Executive Power or an
unfettered repository of Executive Power unconstrained by other
organs of governance,
(2) The Cabinet of Ministers collectively, and not the President
alone, is charged with the direction and control of government,
and
(3) The President as well as the Cabinet of Ministers are
answerable to Parliament. Clearly, the exercise of unfettered power
by former Presidents, without checks or balances by other organs of
government, was a violation of the Constitution. This was
tantamount to an admonition by the Supreme Court to the present and
future Presidents that under the Constitution a President should
have no more executive power than a Prime Minister should have in a
Parliamentary system. The proposed change, making the Prime
Minister (as in the 1972 Constitution) and not the President (as in
the 1978 Constitution) the Head of the Cabinet of Ministers with
attendant powers and functions, involves Articles 4 and 43 of the
Constitution. Neither of these articles require peoples approval at
a Referendum, for amendment. However, perhaps reasoning that
Article 4 should be read as part of Article 3 which relates to the
unalienable sovereignty of the People, the Court held that this
specific change will require direct approval by the Sovereign
People, in a Referendum. To us the People, this was a welcome
assertion as to where exactly sovereignty was vested. However it
was a significant setback to a swift return to the pre - 1972
Parliamentary system. Straightway, the Prime Minister informed the
House that all amendments which require approval of the people at a
Referendum would be withdrawn from the 19th Amendment the 1st
casualty. The watered-down Bill, due to be introduced in Parliament
on 20th April 2015, was further delayed by a sad display of the
culture of our politicians. The once-hallowed Chamber of Parliament
was reduced to the status of a cheap motel. Strong men (and women)
of the former regime, vociferously swore to prevent the adoption of
the 19th Amendment and threatened to disrupt the pada yathra
initiated by the NMSJ. Quiet, but firm, action by President
Sirisena thwarted such moves. The 2nd Reading debate of this
amendment was held on 27th and 28th April, under the watchful eye
of the President. The Government all too readily compromised on
several issues and agreed to patently unreasonable amendments,
perhaps to ensure the passage of the Bill. On April 28 itself, the
3rd Reading was taken and passed with 212 voting for, one voting
against and one abstention. The compromise in respect of the
Constitutional Council, in my view, is a disaster. The 17th
Amendment was a result of Civil Societys endeavours to depoliticise
governance. The Chairmen and members of the Independent Commissions
were to be selected and appointed by a clearly Independent
Constitutional Council consisting of, the Speaker, Prime Minister
and, the Leader of the Opposition ex-officio, and seven persons of
Eminence and Integrity who have distinguished themselves in public
or professional life and who are not members of (or overtly
connected with) any political party. This was exactly what was
proposed in the 19th Amendment. However, what was all too readily
agreed to was that four of the seven independent members should be
replaced by four members of Parliament. The Constitutional Council
was therefore totally politicised. Going by the conduct of our
parliamentarians, particularly during the past decade, can we
reasonably expect them to make any serious attempt to depoliticise
government? The answer is a resounding No! Article 41A (1) provides
that there shall be a Constitutional Council consisting of the
Speaker, Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition ex-officio and
seven others appointed by the President one MP as his nominee, five
(including 2 MPs) on the nomination of both the Prime Minister and
the Leader of the Opposition, and one MP nominated by agreement of
the majority of MPs belonging to Parties or Independent groups
other than those of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the
Opposition. There is no requirement that the nominations of these
four MPs are subject to approval by Parliament. Article 41A (6)
provides that The President shall, within fourteen days of the
receipt of a written communication specifying the nominations made,
make the necessary appointments. In the event of the President
failing to make the necessary appointments within such period of 14
days, the persons nominated shall be deemed to have been appointed
as members of the Council, with effect from the date of expiry of
such period. The proposal in Article 41E (2) that Where the
Chairman (Speaker), the Prime Minister and the Leader of the
Opposition are all absent from any meeting of the Constitutional
Council, the members present shall elect a member from among
themselves to preside at such meeting has been dropped by
agreement. Article 41E (3) provides that The quorum for any meeting
of the Council shall be five members. This provision has thereby
presumably been deliberately amended effectively to say that the
quorum of five must include at least one of the Speaker, Prime
Minister, and Leader of the Opposition. This will surely,
contribute to an unnecessary and even dangerous curbing of the
activities of this Council. Article 41E (8) provides that The
Council shall have the power to act notwithstanding the fact that
it has not been fully constituted or that there is a vacancy in its
membership, and no act, proceeding or decision of the Council shall
be deemed to be invalid by reason only of the fact that the Council
has not been fully constituted or that there has been a vacancy in
its membership or that there has been any defect in the appointment
of a member. For a variety of reasons the 19th Amendment passed by
Parliament on 28th April 2015, was certified by the Speaker only on
15th May 2015. However, the all important amendment replacing four
persons of eminence and integrity who have distinguished themselves
in public life by four MPs was well known to the Prime Minister and
Leader of the Opposition from 28th April 2015. In these
circumstances the four MPs nominated by the Prime Minister and
Leader of the Opposition were presumably formally nominated
immediately after 15th May 2015. They are all at the very least,
deemed to have been appointed as members of the Constitutional
Council by early June. Together with the 3 ex-officio members viz.
the Speaker, Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition, they
constitute two more than the required quorum. Their failure to meet
and initiate the process of inviting applications or nominations
for appointment to the Independent Commissions seems to be a
deliberate ploy or at the very least, a serious omission resulting
in a delay of the Independent Commissions being activated. The
failure of the Constitutional Council to meet at the earliest
opportunity and initiate action to select individuals for
appointment to the Independent Commissions, together with the
refusal (without any valid reasons) to approve the nomination of
the three non-MPs is perhaps an indication of the impending
politicization of the Constitutional Council, the Independent
Commissions and the Institutions to which they will make
appointments. In retrospect, after it received the Speakers assent
on 15th May 2015, the 19th Amendment has been discussed at many
fora. As reported in the media, some of those views are nothing
short of being hilarious. One might have been forgiven for enjoying
the fun, if not for the vital importance of the issues involved.
Without any dispute, these were matters of vital importance to the
supposedly sovereign people of this country. It was for that reason
that it was urged that, without referring the proposals to the
present Parliament for approval, they should be referred to us, the
people in a Referendum, and Parliament dissolved immediately
thereafter. With our sovereignty recognized for the first time
after the 2010 elections, we the people, who are admittedly not as
innocent as we may have been in 1948, would have revealed in our
new found freedom and considered the issues in depth. Having done
so, we the people would have elected representatives who were
likely to represent as faithfully in respect of our views on the
issues involved. Those now in Parliament have proved, time and
again, to be indefatiguable when it comes to elections of any sort.
It was to minimize the possibility of the sovereign people being
fatigued by this rare exercise of their sovereignty that it was
proposed that the General Election and the Referendum both be held
on the same day. The several rejections by the Supreme Court and
the numerous amendments meekly accepted at the 2nd Reading of the
Bill, suggest that the drafters of the 19th Amendment had been
overcome by fatigue. Another view correctly identified the
Executive Presidency as being the poison in the 1978 Constitution
and lamented that the views of the people who had to decide on
these matters, had not been sought by a Referendum. Another view
was that the substance included in the 19th Amendment was
disappointing and that never again should the process carried out
to pass it, be followed again. He lamented that the 19th Amendment
was debated and discussed and numerous amendments proposed without
consulting the people, by means of last minute, closed-door, deals.
There is near universal acceptance that the sovereign people should
have been consulted by way of a Referendum. The President was
compelled to exercise his special skills to ensure he passage of a
distorted version of the 19th Amendment, which itself was
admittedly riddled with lapses. What impact will this adopted 19th
Amendment have on us, the sovereign people? President Sirisena was
compelled to obtain the support of those who, honestly and
consistently are described by the media as being the dregs of
society, to pass this amendment in this form. Has he unwittingly
thrown us from the frying pan to the fire or to another frying pan
which he intends to cool off at the earliest opportunity. Unless
the composition of the Constitutional Council is restored, at least
to what was proposed in the 19th Amendment, the future of this
country is indeed bleak. Whether or not he wants to do this, and if
he does, whether he can do with the newly elected MPs what he
failed to do with the present bunch, is a question. He seems
desirous of doing so. We all wish him success in his endeavour to
do so. It is incumbent that we, the People, should strive to ensure
that most, if not all, of the dregs in Parliament will be washed
away.Only time will tell. Thank you for your patient hearing.
Elmore M. Perera
Attorney-at-Law, Past President O.P.A.
Founder CIMOGG---------------------------
by (2015-06-10 19:09:20)